SUCCESSION  Bernabe de la Cerna died on August 30, 1939.
The aforesaid will was submitted to
[50] DE LA CERNA V. REBACA-POTOT
G.R. NO. L-20234 | DECEMBER 23, 1964 | REYES, J.B.L., J.
BELGIRA | GROUP I
PETITIONERS: Paula de la Cerna, et al.
RESPONDENTS: Manuela Rebaca Potot, et al., and the Honorable Court of Appeals
TOPIC: II. Testamentary Succession; A. Wills; 11. Allowance and Disallowance of
Wills; a. Probate
CASE SUMMARY:
 Bernabe de la Cerna and Gervasia Rebaca executed a joint last will and testament
in favor of respondent herein, their niece, Manuela Rebaca-Potot. Upon Bernabe’s
death, a decree of probate was issued. Subsequently, Gervasia died and a similar
petition for probate was filed. However, the Court of First Instance declared the
testament to be null and void for being executed contrary to the prohibition in the
Civil Code in making a will jointly. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed
the decision on the ground that the decree of probate issued was conclusive on the
due execution of the testament. The case at bar was filed by heirs intestate of
Bernabe. The Court ruled that, as to Bernabe’s share, the previous issuance of a
decree of probate was final. This was not the case as to Gervasia’s share, since she
was still alive at that time. As such, the testament was declared null and void as to
her part. Her interest should pass to her heirs intestate.
DOCTRINE:
 A final judgment rendered on a petition for probate of a will is binding upon
the whole world. Public policy and sound practice demand that at the risk of
occasional errors judgment of courts should become final at some definite date
fixed by law. Interest rei publicae ut finis set litium.
 A will could not be probated during the testator’s lifetime. As such, the validity
of the joint will, insofar as the estate of the wife was concerned, must be
reexamined and adjudicated de novo.
FACTS:
 Bernabe de la Cerna and Gervasia Rebaca executed a joint last will and testament
whereby they willed two parcels of land to their niece, respondent herein and
married to Nicolas Potot, Manuela Rebaca.
probate. The court of probate jurisdiction issued a decree of probate.
 Upon the death of Gervasia Rebaca, another petition for the probate of the same
will was filed. However, this was dismissed for failure of respondent and her
counsel to appear.
o Subsequently, the Court of First Instance ordered the petition heard and
declared the testament null and void for being executed contrary to the
prohibition of joint wills.
o On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision on the ground that the
joint last will and testament has already been admitted to probate by final
order.
 Hence, this appeal by the petitioners, heirs intestate of the Bernabe de la Cerna.
ISSUES and RULING:
 WON the final decree of probate has the conclusive effect as to Bernabe de la
Cerna’s last will and testament – YES
o A final judgment rendered on a petition for probate of a will is binding upon
the whole world. Public policy and sound practice demand that at the risk of
occasional errors judgment of courts should become final at some definite
date fixed by law. Interest rei publicae ut finis set litium.
 WON the final decree of probate has the conclusive effect as to Gervasia
Rebaca’s last will and testament – NO
o The probate decree in 1939 could only affect the share of the deceased
husband. It could not include the disposition of the share of the wife.
o A will could not be probated during the testator’s lifetime. As such, the
validity of the joint will, insofar as the estate of the wife was concerned, must
be reexamined and adjudicated de novo. Thus, the holding of the Court of First
Instance of Cebu that the joint will is one prohibited by law was correct.
o The undivided interest of Gervasia Rebaca should pass upon her death to her
heirs intestate, and not exclusively to the testamentary heir.
DISPOSITIVE:
 WITH THE FOREGOING MODIFICATION, the judgment of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. No. 23763-R is affirmed. No Costs.